Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
State V. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption Of Vindictiveness, Thomas C. Bradley
Maine Law Review
Twenty-one years ago, in Weeks v. State, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, adopted a rule to prevent judicial vindictiveness when resentencing defendants who had successfully appealed their conviction and been reconvicted. The Weeks court adopted as a state due process protection the United States Supreme Court's rule laid down the preceding year in North Carolina v. Pearce. The Pearce rule provides that harsher resentencing of such defendants creates a presumption of constitutionally prohibited vindictiveness unless the harsher sentence is explicitly based on some identifiable misconduct by the defendant since the prior sentencing. Thus, the Law …
The Tradition Of Sustantive Judicial Review: A Case Study Of Continuity In Constitutional Jurisprudence, David M. Gold
The Tradition Of Sustantive Judicial Review: A Case Study Of Continuity In Constitutional Jurisprudence, David M. Gold
Maine Law Review
Until the 1970s, scholars routinely asserted that courts in the late nineteenth century initiated a radical reinterpretation of due process of law in their attempt to stem an onrushing tide of legislation designed to regulate business activity. This protection-of-business theory of due process development originated with the efforts of socialist and progressive commentators of the early twentieth century to discredit what they saw as a “revolutionary” transformation of due process from a term of “nominal significance in American constitutional law” into a bulwark of property. Progressive intellectuals assailed the judiciary in similar terms. Yale University president Arthur T. Hadley, an …
Comparative Perspectives On Specialized Trials For Terrorism, Sudha Setty
Comparative Perspectives On Specialized Trials For Terrorism, Sudha Setty
Maine Law Review
President Obama has made clear that the United States must grapple with questions of how to detain and try potentially dangerous terrorism suspects in a manner that maximizes national security while adhering to the rule of law. Yet the United States faces a serious quandary in terms of how to prosecute suspects who have been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that puts at risk the reputation of the United States justice system and its adherence to rule of law. The question of what trial system to use for suspected terrorists requires an historical interrogation of how and to what effect …